What I like about this site is that they feature REAL people, with real weight loss struggles and successes. You won't find any fake Russian bride pics here!

For those of you to whom that last sentence was, well, Russian, a brief update on the Kimkins Controversy is in order. The infamous woman-in-the-red-dress pic which Kimmer claimed to be her "after" pic turns out to be snatched from a Russian dating site profile. Here's a screenshot:

Anyway, many, many folks have blogged about the recent explosive discoveries, including most of the success stories also featuring photos from dating sites. A court date is set for November 1st, and I truly hope all the folks who were scammed by Kimmer get their both their money and health back in full.

Back when I first blogged about the issue, I was trying to be even-handed about it and see it from both sides. After all, when low carb became popular, there was a huge knee jerk reaction to declare it "dangerous" and "unhealthy". Now that study after study is proving those naysayers wrong about low-carbing, I didn't want to jump to conclusions about a new approach.

However, I find the utter dishonesty Kimmer has displayed by using fake pictures deplorable. She's preying on vulnerable people, those struggling to lose weight and desperate for a quick fix.

As far as the diet goes, you can find some great information here, at Kimkins Exposed, on why going on a very low calorie diet (defined as 800 calories or less) is incredibly damaging to your body. I still maintain that the Kimkins Experiment, or K/E, where you eat as much lean protein as you're hungry for, and enough fat to make the menus work, is a viable way to break a stall or get back into ketosis quickly after a stall. For a long term diet though, I think you need more fat, which is why I use mayo and full fat dressings to up my calories when I follow the shake plan.

All of these picture scandals had me pondering. It's so easy to throw up a picture and claim it's you - and people generally won't go searching for evidence to the contrary. As Photoshop skills become more and more sophisticated, it gets even easier to doctor pictures you already have. I heard of someone actually photoshopping a "No Parking" sign out of a photo and taking it into court to get himself out of a parking ticket - and he won!

I was looking around for information on how to detect such trickery, and I came across an interesting interview with a guy who does this for a living. He's developed software to detect image manipulation, and works with the FBI and companies who rely on real digital images. I found this info at a pretty funny fishing site, of all places. They care about the veracity of the images submitted to them because that's the way they give out prizes for who caught the biggest fish - and they don't want any fakers!

I find this whole mess pretty sad, and was glad to read about someone fighting the good fight against fakery. I don't think it's a huge deal if someone removes bags from under their eyes in a picture, or blurs out a pimple on an otherwise pretty photo or takes out the red eye. To me, none of those things alter the essential portrayal of a face or body. But when you're shaving the edges off arms and shrinking bodies digitally - that's dishonest. So check out some real stories (or some real fish!) to brighten your day.

TrackBack

Comments

Hello - glad to find your site - I'm sure it is going to be helpful. I am very overweight and starting a low carb regime.
Just wondering if you can help me with a question: for my daily total, should I be counting the carbs in a food item...or the net carbs?
Thanks for any enlightenment you may be able to provide!

I'm glad I've found someone else that can clearly discriminate the diet proposed by the Kimkins plan from the heinous fraud that accompanied it.

I agree with you 100% that there are some legitimate points presented by the diet that should be discussed rationally without the same kind of knee jerk response low carb in general get directed at this version of a low carb eating plan.

I will even go a step further--there is no clear clinical evidence that very low calorie diets, particularly ones that are comprised of protein, are harmful in the long term.

For the extremely obese who face co-morbid complications, any temporary health discomforts may be far outweighed (sorry for the pun) by the instantaneous cure such approaches create for co-morbid conditions.

I am not promoting it--though I do use very low carb/low calorie approaches to burn through stalls--I'm just saying there is no compelling evidence that very low calorie diets as a temporary solution to morbid obesity are harmful.

All we have are theories. Even low carb is a theory (though I happen to believe it is the theory most likely to be true given what data exists).

Welcome to low carbing! On the carbs vs. net carbs, I would subtract for fiber but not for sugar alcohols. I think it's important to keep tracking of both total carbs and net carbs. Fiber, in my opinion, doesn't count, but sugar alcohols can impact your body and many people find they cause stalls. You may find you tolerate them just fine, however.

A good guideline for me has been to keep total carbs under 30g, and net carbs under 20g. Hope this helps!

Thanks! I do think there is valuable information to be gleaned from Kimmer's plan, amidst all the muck of the scamming.

She's right, in my opinion, to say toss out the veggies and cheese and low carb treats if you're stalling. That way you can add things back in and work out the culprits. It just seems a sensible way of cleaning up the diet or getting rid of bad habits that tend to sneak in.

As far as very low calorie diets go, I'm not a proponent. I think the jury's still out on long term damage, and the evidence I've seen so far points toward the negative. But if low carb has taught me anything, it's to keep an open mind about nutrition and keep up to date with the latest studies.